Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

My political views.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • My political views.

    I find myself agreeing with Tolkien quite a bit when it comes to anarchy sometimes. Not in the sense of whiskered bombers or the men from Chesterton's book the man who was Thursday who wanted to overthrow morality but in the sense that I think people don't do well when they boss others around.
    sigpic

  • #2
    In any society, there will always be some who wish to accrue as much power over others for themselves as possible. This can take the form of gangs, the mafia, warlords, dictators, or ultra-rich CEOs.

    The fundamental problem in any sort of political anarchy is that if no check on those individual's ability to accrue power exists, they simply accrue power until they take over. Historically in Europe in the medieval period, the lack of any strong centralized government allowed local warlords to enslave their peoples and raise armies and make themselves rich, and gave us feudalism. In Middle Eastern and African countries today that lack a strong central government, we see warlords raising armies. In the US some of those pushing most strongly against central government authority are the richest CEOs who see the laws the government makes as restricting their ability to steal money from people, force people into terrible working conditions, and dump their toxic chemicals into rivers that people use as drinking water, and they perceive the route to more power for themselves over others to be to diminish the protections the government is providing to the people.

    The lesson of history seems to be that the only way to really protect people from the ambitious and the greedy in society that want to accrue power for themselves at the expense of others, is to have a fairly strong central government that has sufficient power to stop them doing that. And also, history has shown us, to ensure that that central government itself acts in the interest of the people, rather than being a route to personal power over others for those greedy people, is to have a democracy rather than a dictatorship. Government by the people for the people seems to be the only way to ensure that the people retain their freedom and are not oppressed by those in society who would choose to accrue power for themselves over others if they could.
    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • #3
      Once it is acknowledged that there needs to be a centralized government that has a stick big enough to play a continuous game of whack-a-mole with those anti-social individuals in society who want to accrue power for themselves at the expense of others, to thus ensure freedom for all and that the greedy and ambitious can't accrue too much power for themselves and steal others' freedoms, then three things become issues:

      1. Constant vigilance against corruption is necessary. It becomes really important keep the centralized authority working for the people, and to make sure that those greedy and ambitious individuals aren't subverting it for their own ends. International analyses have found that lack-of-corruption correlates directly with the happiness of citizens in countries around the world.

      2. What rules / laws it makes and doesn't make, ranging from stopping anti-social behavior by large companies such as dumping toxic sludge into rivers or banks crashing the economy, to personal laws like whether people can use marijuana or have abortions.

      3. How the central government funds its power, and what else it funds.
      e.g. the annual budget for my country was released this week, and it was:

      NZ 2018 budget.jpg

      Those kind of spending ratios are pretty typical of most Western democracies these days (albeit some would spend a lot more on military). There doesn't seem like there's huge scope for reasonable change to those main spending items. Consider:
      a) Healthcare... if you take away government spending on this, you're saying poor people (who can't afford to pay for private healthcare) can just die and that's fine.
      b) Education... do you want an uneducated populace? (Or at least those who don't have rich parents to pay for their education would have none)
      c) Superannuation (pension)... do you want to let old people who are poor just die or do you think they morally have to be provided for?
      d) Social security/welfare... do you think the poor and unemployed should just be left to starve to death or do you think they morally have to be provided for?

      And once we've acknowledged those things do need to happen, all that's left is some scope for bickering over precisely how much they happen with perhaps a 50% margin either way for spending alterations, and bickering over the manner of the tax gathering to finance them.
      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by TheWall View Post
        I find myself agreeing with Tolkien quite a bit when it comes to anarchy sometimes. Not in the sense of whiskered bombers or the men from Chesterton's book the man who was Thursday who wanted to overthrow morality but in the sense that I think people don't do well when they boss others around.
        Have you been able to study the US Constitution? This was made with the recognition that the sociopaths rise to power but can be controlled as long we have a federal government of minimal size along with distribution of powers. The founding father understood that giving much power to the a government is a quick way to lose all freedom.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
          Have you been able to study the US Constitution? This was made with the recognition that the sociopaths rise to power but can be controlled as long we have a federal government of minimal size along with distribution of powers. The founding father understood that giving much power to the a government is a quick way to lose all freedom.
          And we are both honoring our sociopaths and maximizing the size of the federal government.
          Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
            Have you been able to study the US Constitution? This was made with the recognition that the sociopaths rise to power but can be controlled as long we have a federal government of minimal size along with distribution of powers. The founding father understood that giving much power to the a government is a quick way to lose all freedom.
            More useful is to study the history of political systems internationally in the time since then. The US founding fathers had some ideas that turned out well and some ideas that turned out badly. Other countries have made various attempts to copy the US constitution and it's generally ended badly for them. Today the consensus of academics in the political science field seems to be that parliamentary systems are the best.

            "Separation of powers" now seems to be generally regarded as a bad idea because it doesn't work very well. It has a tendency to gum up the workings of government, making it difficult for the will of the people to be implemented and make government slow to non-responsive to rising sociopaths. But it offers great avenues for corruption that sociopaths can exploit - in a sufficiently gummed up government, corruption becomes the only way to get things done. Also, when the government is gridlocked, the populace becomes increasingly supportive of the President accruing more power to himself to cut the gridlock and actually get something done, and that basically paves the way to dictatorship. Countries that have copied the US constitution have discovered that to their cost. So separation of powers has been discovered to be the wrong approach.

            Likewise it has been found to be vitally important to keep significant power out of the hands of any individual, because that gives them a route to accruing more power and becoming a dictator. Thus, even having something like the office of the President is a serious problem, because it gives an entire branch of government where power is the hands of one person and gives a path to dictatorship.

            What has worked best over the last few hundred years have turned out to be parliamentary systems (congress-only systems) that have a single body of elected representatives. They then appoint a nominal leader from among their number whom they can replace at any time (like Speaker of the House in the US). That person then has minimal routes to accruing more political power and cannot rule by fiat (no signing Executive Orders). The simplicity of the single congress makes the system very efficient, and very responsive and to transparent to the public: What is being voted on and who is voting for it is easy to see and politicians can't easily blame some other part of government. It allows for a more minimalist, responsive, and democratic government, and it prevents any individual leader accruing too much power for themselves as their colleagues can replace them within an hour if necessary.

            The founding father understood that giving much power to the a government is a quick way to lose all freedom.
            I can't really see a way of interpreting this statement that makes it true. Seems like a paranoid delusion not at all born out by subsequent history. What maintains freedom is not really anything to do with how 'much power' the government has since usually its power dwarfs that of private citizens by so many magnitudes that it is hardly worth comparing, but rather what maintains freedom is the good-functioning of the democratic process and the minimization of corruption - namely the extent to which the government is operated by the people for the people.
            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
              And we are both honoring our sociopaths and maximizing the size of the federal government.
              Indeed. There have been some major missteps along the way. Hopefully we have a way to correct for these. It still helps for people to know what we are supposed to have here.

              Comment


              • #8
                Honestly I have to wonder sometimes just how much we need government. Honestly I think free markets can do a lot of good. Though ultimately I think all political systems are inevitably troubled by the fact that mankind is sinful.

                I honestly am curious to hear some perspectives on the role government should fill.
                sigpic

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by TheWall View Post
                  Honestly I have to wonder sometimes just how much we need government. Honestly I think free markets can do a lot of good.
                  I don't think you can have free markets without government because sociopathic individuals will try to deliberately undermine the free market system for their own gain unless an authority has a big stick to hit them with to stop them doing that.

                  In the same way, the way to minimize crime is not to just say everyone's free to do as they please, because that would just lead to sociopaths committing whatever crimes against others they felt like. Rather someone needs to have a stick in the form of a police force to keep sociopathic individuals from hurting other people (or stealing all their stuff).

                  In both cases you don't get personal freedoms or market freedom without an authority tasked with keeping it free (police/government laws and regulation). The free market is great just as the freedom to walk down the street without getting mugged is great, but to maintain both requires an effective and uncorrupt government that has good laws and regulations.
                  "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                  "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                  "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                    I don't think you can have free markets without government because sociopathic individuals will try to deliberately undermine the free market system for their own gain unless an authority has a big stick to hit them with to stop them doing that.

                    In the same way, the way to minimize crime is not to just say everyone's free to do as they please, because that would just lead to sociopaths committing whatever crimes against others they felt like. Rather someone needs to have a stick in the form of a police force to keep sociopathic individuals from hurting other people (or stealing all their stuff).

                    In both cases you don't get personal freedoms or market freedom without an authority tasked with keeping it free (police/government laws and regulation). The free market is great just as the freedom to walk down the street without getting mugged is great, but to maintain both requires an effective and uncorrupt government that has good laws and regulations.
                    Can't the individual regulate? Groups of individuals can regulate and individuals vote with wallets all the time. I do have to give credit where it is due though greed is a big problem. The state can be greedy, coorperations can be greedy, individuals can be greedy, anybody can be greedy. I see it like this with the ability to inform fellow consumers about products one affects its market value. If people produce a product that will be consumed people consume that product. However if the product is faulty or defective or the means of attaining the product are not in line with what a consumer will tolerate the consumer does not consume the product. If no one consumes the product the producer loses his time effort and capital he invested. For example look at diamonds. Many labs are creating diamonds actually diamonds, and the result is changing the industry. Affordable quality diamonds without the problems of blood diamonds or child labor. As consumers become more aware of lab diamonds it forces changes on mining and distribution. Thus supply and demand can be used even by a fellow like me. Pearls went through a similiar change when pearl production was made more on farming oysters to produce pearls.
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by TheWall View Post
                      Can't the individual regulate? Groups of individuals can regulate and individuals vote with wallets all the time.
                      To an extent they can. But they can't respond effectively to things they don't know about or that take years or decades to become apparent or if the company lies to them.

                      A few examples... Egg sellers mislabel their cage-hatched eggs as 'free range' and sell them to consumers who don't know any better; Banks creating schemes to steal customers money (opening accounts that customers didn't ask for and charging fees on them; keeping customers' money after they die etc); A company putting chemical waste into the environment that will take 20 years to cause cancer and in the meantime making billions of dollars; Unsafe products that might kill the user; Addictive drugs that sell for trillions and cause an opioid epidemic. etc.

                      If you're killed by a product or take 10 years to find out that it gave you cancer, you're not easily going to be able to go place a 1 star review and say "don't buy". And those responsible might just take their money, dissolve the company, and then start a new company and repeat the process. Trying to keep companies honest through consumer reviews & company reputation struggle to deal with companies changing names or being closed and opened under new names or any long-term effects rather than short ones. It only works well for products that are repeatedly used and are short-term (e.g. going to see a movie, eating at a restaurant). Otherwise it's like an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff rather than a fence at the top - if consumers can only respond after they've all fallen off the cliff it's much worse than if there was a government there that had laws making sure products were safe etc so that consumers didn't have to die before finding out if the product was safe or not. Sociopathic companies also tend to favor consolidation & monopolies so that consumers end up having no options other than them (e.g. Comcast for internet etc), so it doesn't matter how bad they are or how much consumers hate them, they've still got to do business with them.
                      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by TheWall View Post
                        Honestly I have to wonder sometimes just how much we need government. Honestly I think free markets can do a lot of good. Though ultimately I think all political systems are inevitably troubled by the fact that mankind is sinful.

                        I honestly am curious to hear some perspectives on the role government should fill.
                        The problem with anarchy is the same problem (well, one of the many problems) that plagues communism: It requires everyone to go along with a very specific plan and if anyone wants to do something else then whole thing crumbles down so you have to repress them. But communism at least was able to keep itself going because of that repression. Without any government to enforce anarchy, as soon as someone says "you know, I think it would be good to have some kind of central group" the entire thing falls apart. What's to stop them from getting some like people and putting a government together? The pro-anarchy faction would have to just have more power than the other group to either fight them or intimidate them... and in doing so, essentially make a government!

                        The only way to keep anarchy going is to make a government (or what effectively is a government) to enforce it, effectively ending anarchy. I can see the appeal in minarchism but anarchism is basically a dead end.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          More government less liberty. More liberty less government. On one extreme total authority power of government. On the other extreme anarchy.
                          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Externalities are the Achilles heel of pure free market ideology.
                            "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by TheWall View Post
                              I find myself agreeing with Tolkien quite a bit when it comes to anarchy sometimes. Not in the sense of whiskered bombers or the men from Chesterton's book the man who was Thursday who wanted to overthrow morality but in the sense that I think people don't do well when they boss others around.
                              Oh great! You've got Starlight posting charts again. Gee thanks.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                              16 responses
                              75 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Mountain Man  
                              Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                              52 responses
                              262 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Mountain Man  
                              Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                              25 responses
                              109 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                              33 responses
                              195 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Roy
                              by Roy
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                              83 responses
                              349 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Working...
                              X